2003 Cadillac CTS vs. 1971 NSU Ro 80
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1971 NSU Ro 80. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1971 NSU Ro 80 would be higher. At 2,597 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS (179 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 64 more horse power than 1971 NSU Ro 80. (115 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1971 NSU Ro 80. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 410 kg more than 1971 NSU Ro 80. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2003 Cadillac CTS is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2003 Cadillac CTS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1971 NSU Ro 80, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2003 Cadillac CTS (245 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 57 more torque (in Nm) than 1971 NSU Ro 80. (188 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1971 NSU Ro 80.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Cadillac CTS | 1971 NSU Ro 80 | |
| Make | Cadillac | NSU |
| Model | CTS | Ro 80 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1971 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2597 cc | 1990 cc |
| Engine Type | V | dual-disk rotary |
| Horse Power | 179 HP | 115 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 245 Nm | 188 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 9.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 1210 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4780 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2870 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 82 L |
